After a year of living under occupation, once they escape, a secret 'jury' tries collaborators and puts them out the airlock if they are found guilty.

This combines a problem of the present, the GOP star chamber trials for alleged terrorists, and a problem of the future, what Democrats will do with those who collaborated with the assault on our democracy if we regain power.

Ironically, those who collaborated on the TV show were unlikely to be a danger in the future.

In real life, those Democrats who rubber stamped Bush only slightly less than the republicans could be the tool for the next assault. In Britain and New Zealand, where people were thoroughly disgusted with the conservative agenda, the equivalent of the Chamber of Commerce bought candidates in the Labor party like Tony Blair. Blair was largely a sleeper agent until Bush got in office, but in New Zealand, people voted in a laor government then were shocked to see them immediately go about severe cuts in education and other social programs, and the kind of economic policies you would expect from a Republican.

I do not advocate pushing someone out an airlock. It costs millions of dollars to get them up to space and I might feel bad if I was the pusher. We should remember who these collaborators are though, seek to replace them in primaries when we can, and when we can't, make sure they aren't replaced by another corporate tool when they move from Congress to K Street.

I thought about writing about it but I didn't think many watch the show...

Yes, the parralels are really interesting aren't they...? I say yes let's remember the collaborators and do something far worse then push them out of airlocks (it would be costly) lets remove them from ever holding a public office again..let's take away the one thing that they get up in the morning for.....their ego, their power etc...

when Tigh killed his wife, Starbuck found out Casey wasn't her daughter, and Adama congratulates Tigh for bringing them back and he says 'not all of them. we didn't bring them all back. then walks off alone while everybody is carrying Adama on their shoulders.

and conquer, it would be up to us to try to reconcile as neither Democrats nor Republicans but as Americans. We had that for a brief moment after 9-11 before BushCo went back to the old tactics of divide and conquer.

Actually, even before he became Bush's Poodle, he was pursuing policies damaging to this country. He cut benefits for disabled people; continued and extended the Tories' push toward privatization of public services - including, in particular, disastrous pension policies; kept the viciously right-wing and anti-teacher Chris Wood(en)head in charge of school inspections and standards; and let managerialism and 'targets' for everything outrun common-sense (imagine NCLB applied to lots of other things as well as education, and you'll get the idea).

His government did do a few good things - e.g. the Good Friday Agreement re Northern Ireland; the Civil Partnerships bill - but overall, even before the advent of Bush, he had turned out to be well to the right of some of the pre-Thatcher Tories.

Except Lieberman is backing the Likkud Israelis. This is why he is so in favor of wars in the Middle East. The more I think about this PNAC led government and the rush to invade Iraq, the more I believe that it's been to protect Israel.

Okay, I don't have any real proof, just a gut feeling, so flame away. Also, I am not anti-semetic, nor anti-Israel. I believe in the right hands Israel can be a force for peace in the region, but they've got to get rid of their neo-cons, just like we have to get rid of ours.

fool the wealthiest people in America to waste our resources on something that doesn't benefit anyone here?

The interests of our elite and those who favor a "greater Israel" overlap and work synergistically, but I don't think they could be the sole or primary mover toward a war.

ironically, even a Palestinian professor at Columbia attacked by Israel and the America said the same thing--how exactly would our policy be different in the Middle East if there was no Israel? Would we support democracies instead of dictatorships or not try to control their oil?

nothing more. To know for sure we would have to be able to get in the minds of the players to know what they are really thinking, because I don't think we have the whole story. I guess this is one that future historians will have to unravel to get at the truth.

I just read a screenwriting book the other day that said "a choice between good and evil is no choice," no drama. You know what the character should do. The better drama is a choice between two goods or two evils or two unknown (the lady or the tiger).

I took a comedy writing class from a guy who wrote for ALL IN THE FAMILY and he said every episode was supposed to be about an argument between Archie and Meathead, where they were both right, both wrong, or both both.

current events to point out what's wrong with our government. Remember last season when Starbuck tortured a guy who had come under suspicion to try to find out if he was really a Cylon? She did a version of water boarding, where she stuck his head in a bucket of water almost to the point of drowing to make him talk.

I found the show chilling. I believe it was close to or even before the Abu Ghraib torture was revealed.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.